Review of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (2012):
I disagree with the reviewer Anthony Lane of the New Yorker, who gave the film Django Unchained (2012) a "rotten" review, like the New Yorker does with almost every film. I especially disagree with the first sentence of his second paragraph: "The first half of the tale is skillfully balanced, the best thing that Tarantino has done since “Jackie Brown,” and its comedy bristles with barbs." First of all, what about literally every other Tarantino film since 1997, the year Jackie Brown came out? Actually, what about literally ever other Tarantino film every. I'm talking about every film he has ever written, directed, produced, or even appeared in. Jackie Brown is probably his worst movie, ever. I have two big concerns with Lane's statement: First, this reviewer implies that he actually enjoyed Jackie Brown. Okay, it is still a Tarantino film, and he is a masterful director. I can almost forgive him for this. But then he says that Django Unchained is the best thing Tarantino has done since 1997. Has he never seen Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds? Why is this man allowed to review film? I bet he thinks that Showgirls is a legitamate drama about the struggle of a drifter in Las Vegas to move on up from a stripper to a showgirl. This man is an idiot. I refuse to ever read one of his reviews again.
An example of the difference between Jackie Brown and Django Unchained can be seen in their protagonists. Jackie Brown is a flight attendant, which I see as a
fairly free person. She is caught at the border with drugs and goes to jail. Therefore, Jackie goes from being free to being jailed. Django is a slave. The first scene of the film establishes that he is enslaved and has no hopes of escaping. He is freed by Dr. King Schultz and goes hunting for the people that have wronged him. They take completely opposite paths. Jackie is in her forties and already ahs had a chance for a family; Django is young and his chance for a family was taken away from him when Candy bought Broonhilda. Also, Jackie Brown takes influence from blaxploitation films of the '70s, while Django Unchained is an homage to the spagetti westerns of the '60s. These are completely different films, and though they have the same strong director, they cannot be compared to each other in any legimate review.
I agree with the reviewer Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, who gave the film Django Unchained (2012) a "fresh" review, I would sight his statement on the film as a whole as evidence of our agreemtn: "I'll say that it finds Mr. Tarantino perched improbably but securely on the top of a production that's wildly extravagant, ferociously violent, ludicrously lurid and outrageously entertaining, yet also, remarkably, very much about the pernicious lunacy of racism and, yes, slavery's singular horrors." I feel the same way about the film. I loved its mix of violence, drama, and humor to present the horrors of slavery. Quentin Tarantin o really pulled off the production, even through multiple cast changes and criticism of the film, before it even was released to theatres. No one could have pulled such a film off except Tarantino. Having recently watched Roots, I can see why some may criticize the humor and violence of the film, but I think that these elemnts help the viewer to connect to both Django and the film as a whole, allowing them to understand the story in ways that Roots could never show.
Anexample of how QUentin Tarantino really illustrates the horrors of racism and slavery is the phrenology scene. In the scene, Calvin Candy starts tellign Django the story of his family's loyal house slave. This slave worked for the family for fifty years, servng them and never trying to escape.Candy notes that he was a smart man; he could read and was very clever. Then, he tells Django about the "dimples" in the back of the skull. These dimples are parts of the brain that is enlarged because of greater use. Candy takes out the skull of his dead slave and breaks it open with a mallet, shattering it. He picks up a piece in the back and shows Schultz and Django. He tells them that the dimples in the back of this skull are on the obedience and servitude parts of the brain, essentially trying to prove that Africans are biologically "made for" slavery. He even says that if they broken open Django's skull, he would have the same dimples. This pseudoscience of the measurements of the brain is called phrenology, and, today, we know that it has no bearing on brain function or capacity. But, in the context of the movie, it is a very scary scene. Candy slams his ands down on the table and they actually begin to bleed, showing his elitist fervor in the study of phrenology and the oppression of Africans. Without explicitly stating facts, Tarantino painted a portrait of a racist slaveowner, thereby giving the audience examples of the times and shows the extreme degree of racism persistent in the mid 19th century.
Well, one can say that Django Unchained had the most n-word of any Tarantino film. And I know that Tarantino's Australian slaver was a bit cheesy. Now that I'm finished with the negatives, let's go on to the positives. First of all, the concept of this movie is amazing: a Southern Spaghetti Western. Only Quentin Tarantino would have the balls and the cinema background to be able to realize such a vision. The story is that a German dentist buys, a slave, Django, to help him track down some wanted men, and as a reward, he will free Django. They discover that they work well together, so the continue to bounty hunt until the next spring, when they go off to look for Django's wife, Broomhilda, who is sold to the evil planter Calvin Candy, a racist pretty boy. Once they meet up with Candy and gain his trust, all they have to do is buy Broomhilda and set her free to live with Django. But the "Uncle Tom" of the plantation suspects something fishy going on between Django, Schultz, and Hildie. Dajngo must fight to rescue his wife before Candy and Stephen dispose of her. This action-packed thrill-fest may be long (it has a runtime of a little under 3 hours), but it keeps its pace and is fun throughout.
Even though he has done a historical piece in the past (Inglorious Basterds), Django Unchained feels like a new beast. It is raw and, like all Tarantino fills, violent. It captures the raw emotion of not a slave, but a hero, intent on rescuing his wife from the evil dragon, Calvin Candy. Also, the music so eclectic, but it felt like it just fit in. I don't know how one can make rap fit into a western, but Mr. Tarantino fit a RIck Ross track into the film. And the editing made the movie flow like an epic. We just went from place to place, at a fast pace, following Django in his travels to find Broomhilda, his wife. And the cinematography was beautiful. The title sequence just echoed the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns, like the Man with No Name Trilogy starring Clint Eastwood. Still, this is a western movie for the 21st century, so don't expect all of the classic tropes of cowboy movies like guitar playing and good manners. Those were abandoned long ago, for gunfights and rawness of the old spaghetti westerns, nearly 50 years ago.
Review of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (2012):
I disagree with the reviewer Anthony Lane of the New Yorker, who gave the film Django Unchained (2012) a "rotten" review, like the New Yorker does with almost every film. I especially disagree with the first sentence of his second paragraph: "The first half of the tale is skillfully balanced, the best thing that Tarantino has done since “Jackie Brown,” and its comedy bristles with barbs." First of all, what about literally every other Tarantino film since 1997, the year Jackie Brown came out? Actually, what about literally ever other Tarantino film every. I'm talking about every film he has ever written, directed, produced, or even appeared in. Jackie Brown is probably his worst movie, ever. I have two big concerns with Lane's statement: First, this reviewer implies that he actually enjoyed Jackie Brown. Okay, it is still a Tarantino film, and he is a masterful director. I can almost forgive him for this. But then he says that Django Unchained is the best thing Tarantino has done since 1997. Has he never seen Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds? Why is this man allowed to review film? I bet he thinks that Showgirls is a legitamate drama about the struggle of a drifter in Las Vegas to move on up from a stripper to a showgirl. This man is an idiot. I refuse to ever read one of his reviews again.
An example of the difference between Jackie Brown and Django Unchained can be seen in their protagonists. Jackie Brown is a flight attendant, which I see as a
fairly free person. She is caught at the border with drugs and goes to jail. Therefore, Jackie goes from being free to being jailed. Django is a slave. The first scene of the film establishes that he is enslaved and has no hopes of escaping. He is freed by Dr. King Schultz and goes hunting for the people that have wronged him. They take completely opposite paths. Jackie is in her forties and already ahs had a chance for a family; Django is young and his chance for a family was taken away from him when Candy bought Broonhilda. Also, Jackie Brown takes influence from blaxploitation films of the '70s, while Django Unchained is an homage to the spagetti westerns of the '60s. These are completely different films, and though they have the same strong director, they cannot be compared to each other in any legimate review.
I agree with the reviewer Joe Morgenstern of the Wall Street Journal, who gave the film Django Unchained (2012) a "fresh" review, I would sight his statement on the film as a whole as evidence of our agreemtn: "I'll say that it finds Mr. Tarantino perched improbably but securely on the top of a production that's wildly extravagant, ferociously violent, ludicrously lurid and outrageously entertaining, yet also, remarkably, very much about the pernicious lunacy of racism and, yes, slavery's singular horrors." I feel the same way about the film. I loved its mix of violence, drama, and humor to present the horrors of slavery. Quentin Tarantin o really pulled off the production, even through multiple cast changes and criticism of the film, before it even was released to theatres. No one could have pulled such a film off except Tarantino. Having recently watched Roots, I can see why some may criticize the humor and violence of the film, but I think that these elemnts help the viewer to connect to both Django and the film as a whole, allowing them to understand the story in ways that Roots could never show.
Anexample of how QUentin Tarantino really illustrates the horrors of racism and slavery is the phrenology scene. In the scene, Calvin Candy starts tellign Django the story of his family's loyal house slave. This slave worked for the family for fifty years, servng them and never trying to escape.Candy notes that he was a smart man; he could read and was very clever. Then, he tells Django about the "dimples" in the back of the skull. These dimples are parts of the brain that is enlarged because of greater use. Candy takes out the skull of his dead slave and breaks it open with a mallet, shattering it. He picks up a piece in the back and shows Schultz and Django. He tells them that the dimples in the back of this skull are on the obedience and servitude parts of the brain, essentially trying to prove that Africans are biologically "made for" slavery. He even says that if they broken open Django's skull, he would have the same dimples. This pseudoscience of the measurements of the brain is called phrenology, and, today, we know that it has no bearing on brain function or capacity. But, in the context of the movie, it is a very scary scene. Candy slams his ands down on the table and they actually begin to bleed, showing his elitist fervor in the study of phrenology and the oppression of Africans. Without explicitly stating facts, Tarantino painted a portrait of a racist slaveowner, thereby giving the audience examples of the times and shows the extreme degree of racism persistent in the mid 19th century.
Review on Rotten Tomatoes:
Well, one can say that Django Unchained had the most n-word of any Tarantino film. And I know that Tarantino's Australian slaver was a bit cheesy. Now that I'm finished with the negatives, let's go on to the positives. First of all, the concept of this movie is amazing: a Southern Spaghetti Western. Only Quentin Tarantino would have the balls and the cinema background to be able to realize such a vision. The story is that a German dentist buys, a slave, Django, to help him track down some wanted men, and as a reward, he will free Django. They discover that they work well together, so the continue to bounty hunt until the next spring, when they go off to look for Django's wife, Broomhilda, who is sold to the evil planter Calvin Candy, a racist pretty boy. Once they meet up with Candy and gain his trust, all they have to do is buy Broomhilda and set her free to live with Django. But the "Uncle Tom" of the plantation suspects something fishy going on between Django, Schultz, and Hildie. Dajngo must fight to rescue his wife before Candy and Stephen dispose of her. This action-packed thrill-fest may be long (it has a runtime of a little under 3 hours), but it keeps its pace and is fun throughout.
Even though he has done a historical piece in the past (Inglorious Basterds), Django Unchained feels like a new beast. It is raw and, like all Tarantino fills, violent. It captures the raw emotion of not a slave, but a hero, intent on rescuing his wife from the evil dragon, Calvin Candy. Also, the music so eclectic, but it felt like it just fit in. I don't know how one can make rap fit into a western, but Mr. Tarantino fit a RIck Ross track into the film. And the editing made the movie flow like an epic. We just went from place to place, at a fast pace, following Django in his travels to find Broomhilda, his wife. And the cinematography was beautiful. The title sequence just echoed the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns, like the Man with No Name Trilogy starring Clint Eastwood. Still, this is a western movie for the 21st century, so don't expect all of the classic tropes of cowboy movies like guitar playing and good manners. Those were abandoned long ago, for gunfights and rawness of the old spaghetti westerns, nearly 50 years ago.
Posters:
Django Unchained (2012)
Jackie Brown (1997)